There is today a clear shift from the conventional agri-food complex to the alternative agri-food complex. There are many reasons for this such as food safety issues, obesity epidemic, the culinary and aesthetic value for food and social and environmental issues related.[1]
Alternative food networks can be defined as" new and rapidly mainstreaming spaces in the food economy defined by- among other things- the explosion of Organic, Fair Trade, and local, quality, and premium specialty foods".[2]
In the video below is a video about alternative food networks. There is first a definition of what AFNs are. It is mentioned that it is at the moment a chaotic concept and therefore there is no one clear definition available. After that the video describes the possibilities and challenges of scaling up AFNs.
De-localization and re-localization
The difference between these conventional and alternative networks is that the alternative model short-circuits the conventional chain and develops new relationships between the producer and the consumer. In this way these new networks re-localize or re-spatialize food which comes to be defined by its locale.
Activities that have previously involved face-to-face interaction and contained locality are now been replaced with contacts across great distances. This means, that a de-localization is going on. Activities and relationships are uprooted from their local origins. [3]
The figure below describes the differences between de-localization and re-localization.
Type of spatial relationship
DE-LOCALIZATION Conventional agri-food
RE-LOCALIZATION Alternative agri-food
Producer relations
Intensive production "lock-in"
declining farm prices and
bulk input suppliers to
corporate processors/retailers
Emphasis on "quality";
producers finding strategies to
capture value-added; new
socio-technical spatial niches
developing.
Consumer relations
Absence of spatial reference
of product; no encouragement
to understand food origin;
space-less products
Variable consumer
knowledge of place,
production, product and the
spatial conditions of
production; from face-to-face
to at-a-distance purchasing
Processing and
retailing
Traceable but privately
regulated systems of
processing and retailing; not
transparent; standardized vs.
other than spatialized
products
Local/regional processing and
retailing outlets; highly
variable, traceable and
transparent; spatially
references and designed
qualities
Institutional
frameworks
Highly bureaucratized public
and private regulation;
hygienic model reinforcing
standardization; national CAP
support (Pillar 1)
Regional development and
local authority facilitation in
new network and
infrastructure building; local
and regional CAP support
(Pillar 2)
Associational
frameworks
Highly technocratic- at-a-
distance-relationships;
commercial/spatial
relationships; lack of trust or
local knowledge
Relational, trust-based, local,
and regionally-grounded;
network rather than linear-
based; competitive but
sometimes collaborative
Figure 1. Rural space as competitive space and the "battleground" between the conventional and alternative
agri-food sectors.[4]
Sustainable Development Goals
The Division of Sustainable Development (DSD) has as its goal to catalyze action in promoting and coordinating the implementation of internationally agreed development goals, including the seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs).[5]
The Alternative Food Networks can be linked to many of the United Nations sustainable development goals. Through the increase in peoples interest in the quality of food it can be said that the shift on consumption towards better quality food enhances good health and well-being (3)and responsible consumption and production (12). The fact that the alternative food networks also means that the production of food happens closer to consumption, it affects both the climate action (13) through shorter transportation and life on land (15) through de-centralized production.
Corporate praxis
Why would a company be interested in alternative food networks? According to a study 75 % of consumers would be more likely to buy a product or a service if the company is making an effort to be sustainable.[6] If the sustainability is of interest to customers then offering products through alternative food networks would be reasonable. The is because many of the characteristics describing alternative food networks such as short transports, new forms of governance and strong relationships are often linked with sustainability.[7][8]
One example of a functioning Alternative food network is REKO. It is an enhanced and enlarged CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) model, where multiple farms connected directly together with a large number of consumers through a digital platform. In REKO the idea is to provide a model where the consumer van buy the food directly from the farmer. There are three rules that are in common for REKO groups in Finland. There is no middle men between the consumer and producer, There may be no distribution fees and the administrator of REKO has no legal responsibilities towards authorities or consumers.[9]
In the following video is a brief presentation of the REKO model.
In the figure below is an illustration of the REKO model and how it differs from other kinds of markets.
Cutting out the middle man. (Ehrnstöm 2017)
In the video below Anna Häre, campaign coordinator from Pro Ethical Trade Finland tells about different kinds of possibilities for AFN:s to function in a retail trade environment.
According to Häre the challenges for AFN:s to work in a larger scale retail environment is that the direct contact involved in the system is very difficult handle in situations where the products are sourced from hundreds or even thousands of farmers. One emerging trend is direct trade where big brands buy for example cocoa directly from the farmers with no intermediaries. Direct trade does not guarantee as such that the farmers will get a fair price for their product since the bargaining power of the big brands are much greater than those of the farmers. Häre sees that there could be a possibility to implement a way of AFN in a smaller scale. Already today some retail markets have sections where they sell products that are produced locally. There could perhaps be a possibility to have more of these kind of sections where even the farmers could sell themselves their products. Quiz created by Markus Kemppainen with GoConqr
^ Sonnino, R. and Marsden, T. (2005). Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6.
^ Goodman, D. and Goodman, M.K. (2009). Alternative Food Networks. International Encyclopedia of Human Geography.
^ Sonnino, R. and Marsden, T. (2005). Beyond the divide: rethinking relationships between alternative and conventional food networks in Europe. Journal of Economic Geography 6.
^ Forssell, S. and Lanakoski, L. (2014). The sustainability promise of alternative food networks: an examination through "alternative" characteristics. Volume 32, issue 1.
^ Potoki, A. (2010). Globalization–De-Localization. Report of the EDP Working Group. 4th EDP Congress. Brussels
Definition
There is today a clear shift from the conventional agri-food complex to the alternative agri-food complex. There are many reasons for this such as food safety issues, obesity epidemic, the culinary and aesthetic value for food and social and environmental issues related.[1]
Alternative food networks can be defined as" new and rapidly mainstreaming spaces in the food economy defined by- among other things- the explosion of Organic, Fair Trade, and local, quality, and premium specialty foods".[2]
In the video below is a video about alternative food networks. There is first a definition of what AFNs are. It is mentioned that it is at the moment a chaotic concept and therefore there is no one clear definition available. After that the video describes the possibilities and challenges of scaling up AFNs.
De-localization and re-localization
The difference between these conventional and alternative networks is that the alternative model short-circuits the conventional chain and develops new relationships between the producer and the consumer. In this way these new networks re-localize or re-spatialize food which comes to be defined by its locale.
Activities that have previously involved face-to-face interaction and contained locality are now been replaced with contacts across great distances. This means, that a de-localization is going on. Activities and relationships are uprooted from their local origins. [3]
The figure below describes the differences between de-localization and re-localization.
relationship
Conventional agri-food
Alternative agri-food
declining farm prices and
bulk input suppliers to
corporate processors/retailers
producers finding strategies to
capture value-added; new
socio-technical spatial niches
developing.
of product; no encouragement
to understand food origin;
space-less products
knowledge of place,
production, product and the
spatial conditions of
production; from face-to-face
to at-a-distance purchasing
retailing
regulated systems of
processing and retailing; not
transparent; standardized vs.
other than spatialized
products
retailing outlets; highly
variable, traceable and
transparent; spatially
references and designed
qualities
frameworks
and private regulation;
hygienic model reinforcing
standardization; national CAP
support (Pillar 1)
local authority facilitation in
new network and
infrastructure building; local
and regional CAP support
(Pillar 2)
frameworks
distance-relationships;
commercial/spatial
relationships; lack of trust or
local knowledge
and regionally-grounded;
network rather than linear-
based; competitive but
sometimes collaborative
agri-food sectors.[4]
Sustainable Development Goals
The Division of Sustainable Development (DSD) has as its goal to catalyze action in promoting and coordinating the implementation of internationally agreed development goals, including the seventeen sustainable development goals (SDGs).[5]
The Alternative Food Networks can be linked to many of the United Nations sustainable development goals. Through the increase in peoples interest in the quality of food it can be said that the shift on consumption towards better quality food enhances good health and well-being (3)and responsible consumption and production (12). The fact that the alternative food networks also means that the production of food happens closer to consumption, it affects both the climate action (13) through shorter transportation and life on land (15) through de-centralized production.
Corporate praxis
Why would a company be interested in alternative food networks? According to a study 75 % of consumers would be more likely to buy a product or a service if the company is making an effort to be sustainable.[6] If the sustainability is of interest to customers then offering products through alternative food networks would be reasonable. The is because many of the characteristics describing alternative food networks such as short transports, new forms of governance and strong relationships are often linked with sustainability.[7] [8]
One example of a functioning Alternative food network is REKO. It is an enhanced and enlarged CSA (Community Supported Agriculture) model, where multiple farms connected directly together with a large number of consumers through a digital platform. In REKO the idea is to provide a model where the consumer van buy the food directly from the farmer. There are three rules that are in common for REKO groups in Finland. There is no middle men between the consumer and producer, There may be no distribution fees and the administrator of REKO has no legal responsibilities towards authorities or consumers.[9]
In the following video is a brief presentation of the REKO model.
In the figure below is an illustration of the REKO model and how it differs from other kinds of markets.
In the video below Anna Häre, campaign coordinator from Pro Ethical Trade Finland tells about different kinds of possibilities for AFN:s to function in a retail trade environment.
According to Häre the challenges for AFN:s to work in a larger scale retail environment is that the direct contact involved in the system is very difficult handle in situations where the products are sourced from hundreds or even thousands of farmers. One emerging trend is direct trade where big brands buy for example cocoa directly from the farmers with no intermediaries. Direct trade does not guarantee as such that the farmers will get a fair price for their product since the bargaining power of the big brands are much greater than those of the farmers. Häre sees that there could be a possibility to implement a way of AFN in a smaller scale. Already today some retail markets have sections where they sell products that are produced locally. There could perhaps be a possibility to have more of these kind of sections where even the farmers could sell themselves their products.
Quiz created by Markus Kemppainen with GoConqr
https://sustainabledevelopment.un.org/about. Accessed 31.1.2017.
https://www.solarcity.com/sites/default/files/reports/reports-consumer-trends-in-sustainability.pdf. Accessed 31.1.2017.